User talk:SilentShadow
Hi, welcome to Mass Effect Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Widow Anti-Material Rifle page. Be sure to check out our Style Guide and Community Guidelines to help you get started, and please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- SpartHawg948 (Talk) 14:10, February 5, 2010 "I hereby grant my friend, Tungsten, full access to my userpage, in order to complete the unfinished walkthrough using the .doc files I gave him. Formal enouth for you, SpartHog? --SilentShadow" --Tungsten :Not sure who SpartHog is, but if you are asking me (me being SpartHawg948) then the answer is no. Just because you claim that he gave you permission, this means nothing. Observe: "I hereby request that nobody access my userpage for any reason without my express consent in the form of a signed and notarized letter delivered via priority mail. --SilentShadow" So no, claiming that another user gave you permission to edit their userpage in no way gives you permission to edit their userpage. It's right there in the rules. I would have explained this to SilentShadow, but he insulted me one too many times for any more help. SpartHawg948 06:05, February 18, 2010 (UTC) :Two things: 1.There's no need protecting suspended user's pages. 2.Contact Shadow through his mail or unblock him to hear it overhere, he gave me permission, along with his complete work .doc files. --Tungsten0 00:31, February 19, 2010 (UTC) ::This user's page isn't protected. (Or if it is, I don't know about it) Not allowing people to edit the pages of other users is standard site policy. Always has been, always will be. As for unblocking SilentShadow: No. His behavior both here and on other wikis was reprehensible, and does not merit being allowed back. And seeing as every time I have tried to communicate with him in the past, even when all I was doing was trying to provide helpful advice, he has responded by being rude and insulting, I see no need to subject myself to it again by emailing him. If he wanted to finish this project of his, he should have learned to behave in a civilized manner. SpartHawg948 01:01, February 19, 2010 (UTC) :::Maybe, but you miss the point: I was given permission to finish his walkthrough, using the .docs he gave me. I did that and you undone it. You're "protecting" the page I was given permission and asked to complete. If you need confimation, I have already laid-out the ways to get the confimation you need. Also, it's not realy fair to extend a ban for a user for his actions on a different page, now is it? --Tungsten0 12:03, February 19, 2010 (UTC) ::::And you are missing my point. You just typing out a statement ending in "--SilentShadow" in no way proves that he actually authored it, or has given you permission to do anything. As for you laying out what I need to do if I want confirmation he approves, I'll say again, based on the way he has behaved to me and other editors in the past, I see no need to communicate with him further. All I get from him are insults and put-downs whenever I attempt to communicate, and I'm sick of it. As for extending the ban based on behavior at other wikis, it's nothing new. There are several people who are banned from this site for vandalism they committed of other wikis who have never even visited this site, If the vandalism/boorish behavior is egregious enough, then it stands as an example of what this person is likely to do if allowed to return, and we use it as such. And again, I am not protecting this page, I am treating it exactly the same as I do any userpage. I wouldn't let anyone edit any userpage that isn't their own. SpartHawg948 21:28, February 19, 2010 (UTC) :::::Well then what do you want as proof? A photocopy of Shadow's signature along with a hand-written note that he gave me access to his page? If he's banned why even bother moderating the page? Why not leave it alone like it should be? --Tungsten0 21:33, February 19, 2010 (UTC) ::::::That's what I'm trying to do! Leave the page alone like it should be! And part of leaving "the page alone like it should be" involves ensuring that other users also leave the page alone like it should be, by making sure they don't edit it. The only person who should be editing it is SilentShadow, and this of course means that since he is currently banned, there should be no editing of his userpage. As for proof, a photocopy of his signature would hardly work, seeing as I have no more way to verify it's his signature than I do of verifying "--SilentShadow". As for what proof would be sufficient, quite frankly there really isn't anything that would provide sufficient proof for me as an admin to allow someone other than the registered user to edit the user's page. I know it's not what you want to hear, but SilentShadow was given many, many chances to shape up. The fact that he can't finish his walkthrough here now is entirely on him. SpartHawg948 03:53, February 20, 2010 (UTC) :::::::He did finish it. It's in the undo list. Also, he wanted me to pass a message to you: "watch those 'shees!". --Tungsten0 11:04, February 20, 2010 (UTC) ::::::I meant, of course, if he wanted to finish it himself, not have to (allegedly) give permission to someone else to edit his userpage, which is of course a violation of the rules of this wiki. As near as I can tell, as of his last edit, it was still incomplete. So no, he didn't finish it here, did he? And again, that is completely on him. As for his message, I have no idea what it means, nor do I particularly care. If it's some last-ditch attempt to ingratiate himself with me, a better method would be to apologize for saying "Back to the logic part, you have none, so let's just leave it like that." That might be a message worth passing on. SpartHawg948 11:14, February 20, 2010 (UTC) :::::::About the 'shee part - he sais that it's an insult to "cry-baby halo retards" --Tungsten0 19:15, February 20, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Maybe suggest to him that 1) An insult isn't effective if it needs to be explained, so maybe he should try a better one, and 2) Is it any wonder I don't want to have anything more to do with him? Any chance of me emailing him to get confirmation and allowing you to edit his page (which I was seriously considering) just went right out the window. SpartHawg948 22:58, February 20, 2010 (UTC) :::::::I think he thought you knew the meaning when making the insult. I don't think you were actualy consithering it though, you seemed very clear when you said you wouldn't try it. --Tungsten0 23:05, February 20, 2010 (UTC) ::::::I was very clear. However, I had begun to doubt whether there was a valid reason for my refusal to communicate, or whether I was simply being obstinate for the sake of obstinacy. And while I had resolved that I was going to attempt to turn the other cheek and just deal with the guy, as soon as I did, I was promptly met with him calling me a "cry-baby halo retard", which effectively killed my desire to deal with him at all. SpartHawg948 23:28, February 20, 2010 (UTC) :::::::Wait a minute, if you beleave that the insult came directly from Shadow, why do you need confimation about his permission for me to edit? --Tungsten0 23:40, February 20, 2010 (UTC) ::::::I believe it came from him because he also used that same insult towards me on another site, one where it was verifiable that it was him (as the page history showed that it was registered user SilentShadow who made the comment), so I have no reason to doubt it, especially as I have never heard this insult before a few days ago, and now have heard it twice in under a week. On the other hand, there is no way to actually verify he has given you any sort of permission. And while permission is not required for me to believe it was him, no user, at any time, is allowed to make edits to the page of another user. There isn't any rule saying you can do so "with permission". I don't know where the permission factor even came from. SpartHawg948 23:47, February 20, 2010 (UTC) :::::::And technicaly, if someone comes into your house and rearanges your things it's a crime, but if you give your permission, that someone can rearange your things how ever he/she wants or as you requested. There's no rule anywere that states that someone needs permission to rearange your stuff either, but the permission still counts. The page is not too different from that house. --Tungsten0 23:54, February 20, 2010 (UTC) ::::::And if a burglar enters a house, the police show up and the burglar says "It's ok, I have the owner's permission. See, I have a note!" (that is clearly written in the burglar's own handwriting, with a generic signature there is no way to authenticate), will the cops say "Ok. He's fine. Let;s just leave." Hell no they wouldn't! Also, your analogy is flawed. In order for it to be correct, there would have to be a law stating that no person other than the owner of the home can enter the home and rearrange things. Because we do have a rule that no person other than the registered user can edit the user's page. So no, not like a house at all. So, allow me to present to you your analogy, corrected to accurately reflect the situation, instead of tailored to make the point you want it to make: ::::::*It is a crime for someone to come into your house and rearrange your things. But if you give your permission for that person to come into your house and rearrange your things, it's still a crime for them to do it, because the law states that it is a crime for someone to come into your house and rearrange your things. Hope that cleared up any confusion. SpartHawg948 00:30, February 21, 2010 (UTC) :::::::I'll have to dissagree on that one. --Tungsten0 00:33, February 21, 2010 (UTC) :Fair enough. You do what you've gotta do. I will point out though that, if an act is illegal, it isn't legal to do it with permission just because the law doesn't say you can't do it with permission. But again, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. SpartHawg948 00:37, February 21, 2010 (UTC) ::Certain admins would dissagree with that fact, mostly at private Lineage 2 servers... Seeing as this is leading us nowhere, I think it's best to talk to Shadow and ask him if it's ok to just post the walkthrough on my page - would be a shame to let 70 pages of good work be lost in the archives. --Tungsten0 00:43, February 21, 2010 (UTC) Proper Editing Protocol Please do not make statements at the top of articles such as "THIS IS A WORK IN PROGRESS, please do not edit anything before it is completed" and "do not edit this our self because I'm constantly playing the game and typing here.". This is a wiki, an encyclopedia anyone can edit, and the page in question is an article in the main (encyclopedic) portion of the site, which means any editor is well within their rights to make edits to it whenever they wish. There is no such thing as "ownership" of articles. You can't expect people to sit back and not make edits in a public environment simply because you want to do it all yourself. If you feel this way about it, post the walkthrough on your own userpage. There you will have absolute freedom to work on it on your time-frame, with no one else making any edits. This kind of attitude will not be tolerated on the public side of the site, so I ask that you please refrain from now on. Thank you, SpartHawg948 01:34, February 9, 2010 (UTC) Protocol again. Telling someone "their edits suck" and leaving edit summaries such as "bullshit deleted" are not acceptable. The edit was not "bullshit", it was a legitimate note about a possible item. If it was inaccurate, simply say so. Insulting other users and their work will not be tolerated: if you wish to be part of a collaborative editing community (emphasis on collaborative), please treat others' work with the same courtesy you'd like yours to be handled with. Insulting behaviour may result in a ban: see the Community Guidelines. Additionally: SpartHawg is correct about "ownership" of articles. However good it is your work WILL be edited if it is submitted here; articles don't have owners and, except for protected ones, all pages are free to be edited by anyone. Nature of a wiki. : ) --Tullis 16:15, February 11, 2010 (UTC) ::I have finished the game five times, three of which on insanity.. The Geth Pulse Rifle does NOT appear on difficulties lower then hardcore. Also, I do not take ownership for any article, I only requested that the article I was writing would not be messed up before it's completed. Lastly, I'm surprised you take the word "bullshit" as an insult. --SilentShadow 16:31, February 11, 2010 (UTC) :: Add, I also never told anyone that their edits suck. --SilentShadow 16:31, February 11, 2010 (UTC) :::Again, I'm just confused though that you state that you don't feel any ownership, but then in the same sentence, speak of the article using the possessive "I". "I do not take ownership for any article, I only requested that the article I'' was writing would not be messed up before it's completed." (emphasis added). Hard to say you aren't claiming ownership when everything is yours, eh? And please remember the community guidelines. Someone else editing an article (for example to remove spelling or grammar errors) hardly constitutes being "messed up", and when is an article on this site ever really completed? Everything here is a work in progress. SpartHawg948 23:02, February 11, 2010 (UTC) ::::"I" as in the original writer, that does not declare ownership, only signifies that an article was originally made by one person rather then pieced together by the whole internet from the start. Think about it, if someone takes out a portion of text and "fixes" it, then puts it back in without any logic or relations to the rest of the text it becomes messed up. And that usually happens once or twice a day, that was the whole point of writing a guide and then letting it be edited. --SilentShadow 23:12, February 11, 2010 (UTC) :::::Then why not write it elsewhere, like in a sandbox page, then transfer it over, instead of violating pretty much every rule of wiki-dom by telling other users they weren't to edit the article without your express permission? And the possessive I came into play in that it stated that ''you were the author, you were writing it and didn't want anyone messing it up (your words) until you were done. Seems like attempting to exercise authorial control to me. SpartHawg948 23:17, February 11, 2010 (UTC) ::::::I didn't think of anywhere else to write it, back then I didn't even know that a sandbox feature was added. I asked people to post mistakes and such in the article's talk page because I was sitting in the editor 18/7. I did say that I was writing it, but I did not state that I was the author. About the messing up part, I already explained. If asking to leave an article alone until it's complete and ready to be edited is "authorial control" then yes. --SilentShadow 23:26, February 11, 2010 (UTC) :::::And that's what I'm driving at! Assuming authorial control is claiming ownership! You can't have authorial control over something unless it is your work, so you can't really assume authorial control without assuming it's your work, or assuming ownership. And no one has authorial control of articles here, no one. 18/7 isn't good enough. If you want control of what goes in an article like that, you need to be here 24/7/365. Someone else making an edit on a wiki (aka an encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit) isn't messing it up, it's what makes this system great! Again, no article here is ever going to be "complete". Ever. And every article is "ready to be edited". Every single one. There is no such thing as an article that is "complete and ready to be edited", as they are all incomplete and all ready at any time to be edited. Attempting to exert any control whatsoever over this process will not fly. SpartHawg948 23:31, February 11, 2010 (UTC) ::::::I see this won't go down without the usual letter-fight. You fail to see that I asked the article to be left alone until it's done, there the second thing you failed to understand, by complete I mean written from the first to the last mission. Messing up is also not a problem for the "professionals", example: I write two boss killing strategies, one paragraph starting with "The quickest way..." and an other paragraph with "Also you might want to try...", then someone comes in and writes a third paragraph beginning with those same words. Two times "also" is a style mistake and is one of multiple problems that come with trying to write an article while at the other end someone's trying to add to it in their own way. Any walkthrough that has all the missions in place is considered complete, but imperfect. It cannot be incomplete, unless someone deletes a part of it. --SilentShadow 23:46, February 11, 2010 (UTC) :::::I didn't fail to see anything. I saw you ask others to leave the article alone. My point was that asking it to be left alone (particularly asking by placing a request at the top of the article for people to not make edits) is highly inappropriate, to say the least. Also, I wasn't aware you work for wikia (Wikia staff being the only "professionals" on a wiki, after all, even admins like me are just high-ranked amateurs), Two times also may be a stylistic mistake in your opinion, so go ahead and change the wording! It's a wiki, ANYONE can edit it! Someone obviously felt your boss-killing strategies were incomplete and added content, there is nothing stopping you from adjusting the wording. And again, an article may be complete from your point-of-view, but not from everybody's. Someone is going to come along and edit it eventually, which is why no article is ever complete. Unless the article describes every possible way a person can play through the game (down to the absolute minutiae) it is going to be incomplete. Your walkthrough is no different. SpartHawg948 00:59, February 12, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Shifting the subject slightly it seems, if someone posts their way of killing a boss it's not a problem, usually. They tend to mess up the whole paragraph and I'd need to re-edit it, I'm not going to spend a year with my little one week project so that is not really an option. Just because anyone can edit doesn't mean I can ask them not to. And my walkthrough is a step by step, describing the game minute by minute basically. --SilentShadow 01:31, February 12, 2010 (UTC) :::::Regardless of whether someone's edit inconveniences you by "messing up" a whole paragraph, you can't start an article by asking other editors to not make edits, and to post any changes they'd like included on the talk page. That just will not fly. And again, unless a walkthrough contains every bit of minutiae and every possible scenario, it is not complete, not by a long shot. Now, if your walkthrough covers every possible squad configuration for every mission, every possible recruitment order, every possible upgrade scenario, etc, then it can be called complete. If it doesn't, it's not even close to complete, no matter how step by step, minute by minute it is. This, combined with the fact that there is always going to be something someone feels was left out, is why I stated (accurately) that there is no such thing as a "complete" article. SpartHawg948 04:13, February 12, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Lets put it like this. You buy parts to build a pistol, you build the pistol over a week, you load the pistol with ammo, you fire the pistol and it works. It is complete. It can be upgraded with laser sights, enhanced optics, silencers, extended clip, rapid fire, etc. It can be upgraded, but it is complete. The walkthrough is not any different. And I can write anything on wiki, you said it your self. Including lines that ask people to post wanted changes on the talk page. And as far as I'm concerned - I did and it partially worked. --SilentShadow 16:12, February 12, 2010 (UTC) :::::I want to let this line of conversation drop, b/c I hate the sensation that I'm banging my head against a brick wall, but I do hate it ever so much when people put words in my mouth. So, with that in mind, please provide for me in quote form the statement where (according to you) I foolishly and incorrectly stated that you "can write anything on wiki". Please. If you are having difficulty, I think I can see why. I never said any such thing, as that statement would be highly inaccurate. What I did say was that on a wiki, ANYONE can edit whatever article they wish, leaving unsaid (as it was, or at least seemed to me to be, fairly obvious that any edits made must be done within the confines of the rules of the site). You benefited from this, and then attempted to (partially) prevent others from doing so with your "request", which people (mostly) went along with until an admin (me) came along and saw it, and then removed it for the unreasonable tripe that it was. Again, please supply the quote where I told you that you "can write anything on wiki". I love fiction. SpartHawg948 23:21, February 12, 2010 (UTC) ::::::You did not say it directly, but from your speech it's easy to make sense that anything can be written, even if it is a complete lie. --SilentShadow 23:53, February 12, 2010 (UTC) :::::So I didn't say it, eh? So can you remove the comment where you claim "And I can write anything on wiki, you said it your self." since I myself said nothing of the sort, as you said yourself? Still, if you inferred it, that would have to mean that something I said strongly suggested that you "can write anything on wiki", as opposed to just saying that a wiki is an encyclopedia ANYONE can edit. So again, please provide the statement I made that implied "anything can be written, even if it is a complete lie." Please. SpartHawg948 00:47, February 13, 2010 (UTC) ::::::I already explained that "between the lines" of your posts, it's easy to read that statement if you pay attention. If you can't understand - don't post. --SilentShadow 01:19, February 13, 2010 (UTC) ::::: 1) You never stated anything about reading between the lines till just now. Never. 2) If you cannot produce comments I made that either directly state or suggest (even in the slightest) that you "can write anything on wiki", then don't say that I made comments that stated or suggested any such thing. 3) You really want to be mindful to not make comments like "it's easy to read that statement if you pay attention. If you can't understand - don't post." Another admin has already warned you that insulting behavior will lead to a ban. Let's not push it, shall we? SpartHawg948 01:27, February 13, 2010 (UTC) ::::::For the first statement I figured it was obvious. For the second statement, I won't bother I have more important things to do then try to explain logic to you. And for the third, I do not really care about getting banned, this is just one little page in the the big sea. Also, I don't recall being warned, only being accused and threatened to. I'm not restrained by threats nor bans, I think I'll "push it" as far as I like. --SilentShadow 09:02, February 13, 2010 (UTC) :::::So, now it goes from "I already explained that "between the lines" of your posts" to "For the first statement I figured it was obvious"? Which is it? Did you already explain it, or did you leave it unsaid, as you figured it was obvious? It can't be both, your contradictory statements notwithstanding. :::::As for your second point, you misrepresented my words, tried to make it appear I said something I didn't, then when I asked you to produce the quote or retract the slanderous comments (in essence, asked you to "put up or shut up") you fail to produce a quote but claim it's only because you "have more important things to do then try to explain logic" to me. That's rich. Here's some logic- don't claim a person said something they didn't unless you can back that claim up. When called on it, don't change your story to claim that they said something that strongly implied something contrary to their point unless you can back that claim up. Pretty common sense, that. :::::As for the warning, you don't recall it, so here it is, quoted from the start of this very thread- "please treat others' work with the same courtesy you'd like yours to be handled with. Insulting behaviour may result in a ban: see the Community Guidelines." That was from Tullis, another of the admins here. Hardly accusatory or threatening, wouldn't you agree? And please, do continue to push it. SpartHawg948 10:53, February 14, 2010 (UTC) ::::::And here I figured you've let the topic drop when you didn't answer for a day... Everything you've written here is mostly based on the first speculation with minimal understanding of what I've wrote, and mostly it's not true. I did not tell you two different things on the same subject, those were two different ones to two different statements. As I said before, I will not even bother explaining logic to someone who dismisses everything and continues ranting. As for the "ban warning", that is based on IP and not on an individual, there are more then 50 computers connected to the same router on my end, don't even try on judging from IP... As I said before, I do not fear bans nor threats. I will push things as far as I want. --SilentShadow 11:19, February 14, 2010 (UTC) :::::No, the ban warning was based on comments made by you (your account, not an IP), as Tullis made clear when she said "Telling someone "their edits suck" and leaving edit summaries such as "bullshit deleted" are not acceptable." The history clearly shows that the incidents she was referring to were committed by the registered user SilentShadow, not an IP. Again, if you want to be logical, please retract the statements you made in which you put words in my mouth and misinterpreted my statements. That would be the logical thing to do, wouldn't it? It would certainly resolve this situation. So no, the ban warning was not based on any anon IP contributions, it was based on your actions. Tullis cited several incidents directly tied back to your account, meaning one of two things- either you yourself committed the actions which resulted in her warning, or you carelessly allowed others to access your user account and commit said acts. I'm trying to extend a bit of an olive branch (which may be partially obscured by my desire for you to retract comments claiming I said something I didn't) by advising you that further rude or insulting language will result in a ban. This is not a threat, I'm trying to send a wake-up call. I hate banning people, even people who (in my opinion) have slandered me, and I'm trying very hard to avoid having it come to that in this situation. So please, don't push it any further, as any further will be over the point of no return. SpartHawg948 12:27, February 14, 2010 (UTC) ::::::I have never told anyone their edits suck, you might want to review your knowledge. About the bullshit deleted part, someone said that the Geth Pulse Rifle appears on normal difficulty on PC and I've finished the game 5 times on PC so far and can confirm that it doesn't, meaning - it's bullshit and I removed it, so it's deleted. ::::::"Not a threat" sure sounds like a threat. Either way, ban me if you like, I don't care as long as my work on my user-page is still under my control. I've gotten banned from hundreds of sites and thousands of servers for being... inconvenient. One more site will not change anything. ::::::Back to the logic part, you have none, so let's just leave it like that. ::::::--SilentShadow 12:44, February 14, 2010 (UTC) :::::Wow. You try and try to help someone keep from plunging off a cliff, and they just keep right on going. I tried. I really did. Then, rather than just let it go, you decide to throw in another insult (I assume for good measure?) by saying "Back to the logic part, you have none". Well, I said anything more would be over the point of no return, so I really hope you have fun out there. Alas, your user-page will not be under your control. Standard procedure when someone has been cautioned but still insists on behaving poorly by using their user page/user talk page to insult other users is a complete ban. SpartHawg948 12:55, February 14, 2010 (UTC) Addendum I also just realised you are the same anonymous user who was banned after vandalising my user page in an apparent tantrum, after I corrected some of your edits. Please consider what I've said about courtesy to other users in future. --Tullis 16:22, February 11, 2010 (UTC) ::If you're judging from IP, there are several computers in the building I live in, all are connected under one router. I haven't vandalised any user page recently. Do not jump to conclusions based solely on one fact that may not be accurate. --SilentShadow 16:31, February 11, 2010 (UTC) :::Then I apologise, but when I see you calling someone's edits "bullshit", and that someone from the same IP (who signs themselves with your username elsewhere) vandalised my user page to call me a bitch, and tells Lancer1289 his edits suck, it is not an unreasonable conclusion to draw. However I'm sorry if I offended you. :::No, I don't normally take the word bullshit as an insult, but it was clearly meant to be insulting. You referred to removing a legitimate edit (which may have been mistaken, fair enough) as "bullshit deleted", in a derogatory manner. Regardless of what you intended, such language can easily cause offence to other users. Please avoid it in future. --Tullis 19:51, February 11, 2010 (UTC)